A movie like POTO not only doesn't need a big name actor, a big name actor as the phantom will actually detract from it. POTO succeeds or fails on its ability to draw the audience into the story. If the audience is distracted thinking about WHO is under the mask and regretting that some cute actor has his face covered up or is busy thinking I didn't know he could sing they're not into the movie. Alfred Hitchcock said one reason to cast a star is because it saves you 20 minutes establishing his character. Cast a star whose persona matches the character and the audience brings with it their impressions of the actor and their previous roles. In a lot of cases this works. In something like POTO it's a major distraction. Movies that no one knows what they are about may benefit from having a star or a name that gives the audience a clue what to expect or draws attention to the movie. Movies that have name recognition and a ready made fan base such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and POTO not only don't need "big names"; casting "big names" is more likely to turn that fan base off than do anything else. The minute the studios start talking about how they need some "Name" they are sending the fans the message that they don't have enough faith in their product and that their main interest is NOT in making the best movie possible. Studios underestimate their audiences. A great movie makes the stars the stars don't make the movie. Titanic made Leo and Kate big not vice versa. Leo's next movie went right down the tubes. It's not the star that makes the hit; it's the coming together of the right actor in the right role. It's often a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Casablanca with Ronald Reagan would have been a different movie than Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart. The remake of Psycho didn't hold a candle to the original. Lucy instead of Angela in Mame was a disaster. Good word of mouth and enthusiastic fan support will do more to make a movie a hit than any "big name" can possibly do.